Balanced synaptic currents underlie low‐frequency oscillations in the subiculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous synaptic and intrinsic membrane mechanisms have been proposed for generating oscillatory activity in the hippocampus. Few studies, however, have directly measured synaptic conductances and membrane properties during oscillations. The time course and relative contribution of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic conductances, as well as the role of intrinsic membrane properties in amplifying synaptic inputs, remains unclear. To address this issue, we used an isolated whole hippocampal preparation that generates autonomous low-frequency oscillations near the theta range. Using 2-photon microscopy and expression of genetically encoded fluorophores, we obtained on-cell and whole-cell patch recordings of pyramidal cells and fast-firing interneurons in the distal subiculum. Pyramidal cell and interneuron spiking shared similar phase-locking to local field potential oscillations. In pyramidal cells, spiking resulted from a concomitant and balanced increase in excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents. In contrast, interneuron spiking was driven almost exclusively by excitatory synaptic current. Thus, similar to tightly balanced networks underlying hippocampal gamma oscillations and ripples, balanced synaptic inputs in the whole hippocampal preparation drive highly phase-locked spiking at the peak of slower network oscillations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".